Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital Articles
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles articles
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction[edit]

FA FA GA GA A – Total
December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022
June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999
December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014
FA A GA B C – Total
December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999
January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986
January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991
June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000
October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999
January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998
December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000
December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994
January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999
December 20, 2019 88 2 121 390 383 17 1001
November 25, 2020 83 1 127 373 402 15 1001
March 19, 2022 73 2 127 387 406 5 1000
January 11, 2023 71 2 128 299 471 27 998
February 5, 2024 71 0 131 403 395 0 1,000

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. When the list is full, it is highly recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list. Please see the table to the right (on desktop) or above (on mobile) describing the percentage of articles as FA, GA, etc. for a history of the list.

All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 15 days.

  1. After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
  2. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
  3. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
  4. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should generally be left open beyond the above-listed minimums if they have a reasonable chance of passing. Please be patient with our process. We believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the vital articles list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.

  • 15 days ago: 12:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 12:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 12:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Public transport[edit]

This is a key feature of most modern societies. It covers things like High-speed rail, Ferry, Rapid transit, and Bus. Not sure what to swap it with since it would be one over quota, but looking forward to your opinions. Interstellarity (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Now that transport is of Level 2, it is reasonable to include this crucial article, however a few articles must be removed so that the quota won't be exceeded.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Broad coverage, I would rate higher than Bicycle  3 and Bridge  3/Canal  3 CMD (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose Mass transit is primarily an urban phenomenon. I'm open to the idea of adding an article related to urban areas, but have some doubts that this should be the first one added. For example, topics like urbanization (rural–urban migration was fundamental to the development of civilizations and is a defining feature of industrialization) and suburb get more views than public transport. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Cobblet, but I'd argue public transport is more important than suburb. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Vital article landing page[edit]

I know that there have been RfMs on moving this page to Vital Article Level 3 (which have failed), but I think the issue is that in the absence of a proper Vital Article landing page, this was the best fit, which makes sense.

However, I do find the Vital Article Project at times confusing to engage with and navigate, and the RfC above on the top icon shows that wider members of the Wikipedia community have chequered views of the VA Project.

I think there should be a proper VA landing page that explains the project, it's guidelines (e.g. can a redlink be nominated, must an article start at Level 5 before going higher etc.). There is a lot of good work being done here (and as the academic paper above highlights), but it is very easy to miss it (and even dismiss it, per above). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even this WikiProject Vital Articles page is not right. It is all about how to bring VA to GA/FA status. Instead, it should be about the policies and guidelines about how Vital articles are chosen and how to participate productively in those discussions. It is unusual that some editors from GA/FA (per the top icon RfC above) are dismissive of VA, but according to the VA main page, the sole focus is how to bring VA articles to GA/FA status? Instead, the VA main page should be about the process of adding/removing VAs imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an improved landing page is needed. Separating from level 3 might be the best idea. If you could mock up a proposed page then it might help — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to try. Can you give me some pointers about how I would do that? I have never done such a thing outside of article creation? Should we set up a sandbox version that we could all have a go at? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could create a page in your userspace (e.g. User:Aszx5000/Vital articles) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final question, I am going to try an draft a page that focuses on the policies/guidelines etc for adding/removing VAs. I thought that the Wikipedia:New pages patrol front page would be a good template as it lists in detail the policies/guidelines/tools for NPP. Obviously, NPP is a more complex process, however, would such a template/approach work? Aszx5000 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will reserve judgement until I have seen your proposed page :) Then I will comment constructively — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000 you could incorporate some of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions into the landing page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very helpful and what I would like the landing page to feature prominently. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) Aszx5000 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress with this @Aszx5000? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away for a few weeks but going to give this a go in March and see where I get to. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000: Any updates on the landing page? Interstellarity (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't forgotten but have been time constrained lately and trying to finish the overhaul of major climbing articles. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Hatshepsut  3 for Cleopatra  3[edit]

Why is Hatshepsut V3? She is just your above-average pharaoh. But hey, there's a perfectly good swap: Cleopatra, a much more famous female pharaoh. 81 interwikis vs 145, 1.5k daily views vs nearly 150k! (yes, check yourself, maybe there's some data error?). Cleopatra has List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra and many more entries in Category:Cultural depictions of Cleopatra vs Category:Cultural depictions of Hatshepsut. Sems like a no brainer here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for Cleopatra, I think i read somewhere that it was the top read historical article on the en wiki in 2023 or something very close. Neutral on Hatshepsut. Respublik (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vileplume (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, especially since we already have a pharaoh of the New Kingdom. Generalissima (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support swap per nom/disucssion below. starship.paint (RUN) 14:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support swap per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support swap per nom. Easy call. Jusdafax (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support swap per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Refrained from commenting on this initially to let someone more in the know comment, but as that isn't coming then oppose as per previous discussions, Cleopatra is generally agreed to be historically unimportant especially outside of her involvement with Julius Caesar  3 and Augustus  3 (both listed). Hatshepsut was not only actually influential in and of herself but also from a less represented era of history. J947 ‡ edits 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per previous discussions. The list is not just about page views; it's also about breadth of coverage and avoiding redundancy. Caesar and Augustus's articles already cover Cleopatra's significance. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above and my comments in the past. Gizza (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Re data error: Hey Google. J947 ‡ edits 02:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J947 Nice! So before the data became messed up there, "the annual views on Cleopatra were around 2.5 million." which seems to be ~<7k. So not as crazy but still supporting my argument that she is much more vital. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: six-month no-revisit rule[edit]

I'd like to propose, at all five levels of VA, that if a proposal reaches consensus, you can't make a counterproposal against that for at least six months. For example, if consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. If consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. Etc. etc. swaps are a little more complicated though pbp 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this makes sense, and we should have a page of general guidelines for VA on a VA "homepage" (which I am going to try an construct when I have time). Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. When I see a nomination that has recently been discussed, I usually ask if they would close the discussion so that we can focus on other stuff rather than rehashing what we have recently resolved. This makes complete sense.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. per Aurangzebra. It would just be an unnecessary bureaucratic hindrance for new members to engage in the project. Links or results of a previous disscusions can always be mentioned in the proposals and hopefully reflected, but mandating this as a rule feels needless. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to illustrate the point, I would only support this if the period for auto and manual archiving in all the relevant levels would be extended to six months after a closure. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Respublik. We need fewer rules, not more. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  1. good idea in theory but in my experience (aka when I do this), it's primarily an accident and it's infeasible to expect that people search through the archives any time they want to post a proposal. Aurangzebra (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Abraham  3 and Moses  3 to Mythology or Abrahamic religions[edit]

This is self-explanatory, these articles are listed in this section on all other levels. Vileplume (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support if you mean under 'Abrahamic religions'. If you specifically mean Mythology, oppose. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support moving under Abrahamic religions. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, this makes a lot of sense. I would suggest treating other non-historical figures similarly, because they too are in fact not people. Off the top of my head, this would mean Homer could go under Literature, and Laozi could go under Philosophy, perhaps under Eastern philosophy next to Confucianism. There are probably a couple of others that I'm forgetting, so if there are any more I would support moving those too. Ladtrack (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Hm? They are religious figures, clearly. The Blue Rider 00:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think OP means under Religion which is where Abraham and Moses are slotted at every other level. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are already under Religious figures. The Blue Rider 00:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And they aren't under that in all subsequent levels is the issue. Don't really mind either category but I do support consistency. I lean towards keeping them under Abrahamic religions since their existence is disputed (there is no unequivocal guarantee that they were real people). Aurangzebra (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Moses is more hitorical than Homer for example. See also PBP's comment below and Rregan007 comment here. We reached usance to list Abraham and Moses along with all other religous figures and I do not see reason why change it. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I don't see why? They belong to 'Religious figures'. The current placement makes more sense than the proposed ones, which contain no biographical articles at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Looking at Ladtrack's list, we're talking semi-legendary figures here. Neither biographies nor mythology is a perfect fit. pbp 15:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to clarify that my list was based on what the apparent rationale for placing them in that area in levels 4 and 5 to begin with. I was not actually involved in placing them there and cannot confirm that that is why they are there, but it seems overwhelmingly likely considering the other figures that are similarly placed in level 4. As for perfectly fitting, while it seems somewhat oddly placed on face value, I think the lower levels have it right in this case. There are several biographical articles placed in the mythology section in level 4, and they are placed there because they are considered mythical figures due to lack of historicity. Achilles, for example, falls into the same vein of maybe-possibly based on something. The sacking of Troy is generally regarded as a real thing and the Iliad's Achilles could conceivably have been based on someone. This is more or less the same level of historicity that is attributed to Moses, for example. The historicity section in the Moses article discusses potential Moses-like figures, and the strongest evidence of his historicity is that some version of the Exodus is generally regarded to have happened and that there may have been a central figure in it resembling his depiction in the Torah. But if Achilles was brought into this level, he surely would not be in the people section. This leaves us with the view that the only reason that Moses and Abraham are listed as people and Achilles would not be is simply because large groups of people currently believe in the former two figures, as opposed to the ancient Greek religion which is functionally dead. This does not strike me as a particularly good reason to leave them in the people section. I do think that placing them in mythology, as level 4 does, seems a bit harsh for figures in living religions, so religion feels like a reasonable compromise. After all, they are undoubtedly religious figures, real or not. Ladtrack (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Mobile phone[edit]

We already list Telephone at this level which should cover all phones. Interstellarity (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. The Blue Rider 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]
  3. Support per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important in economy and culture. Telephone is more like history topic. --Thi (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I would support swap with Smartphone  4-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an opinion on the swap just yet, But I would fine with it if other people think it would be OK. Interstellarity (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support Smartphone at V3, which has had a massive global impact. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Swap Catherine the Great for Peter the Great[edit]

Peter is one of the key rulers that changed Russia totally. There is even such expression "pre-Petrine Russia", there is no such expression as "pre-Catherinian Russia". Russian history is clearly divided into before (with the boyars, without any schools, without navy) and after Peter (with Governing Senate, with Academy of Sciences, with a big navy). His importance cannot be overstated. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support addition Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose We don't list key rulers of all sorts of countries, but we do need some significant historical women on the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Cobblet (although Russia is a huge country and at times a huge Empire, so perhaps we could have them both)? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
  1. Going to reserve judgment on Peter the Great because I'm not a huge expert on Russian history but it is worth nothing that a proposal to remove Catherine the Great recently lost 6-2 and I think Grnrchst's reasoning on that thread is pretty compelling. I would vote again to reject any proposal that wants to remove Catherine the Great. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Bread and Cheese from level 3 to level 4[edit]

Within the "Food and drink" section on level 3, there are several staple foods and crops, such as Salt, Spice, meat, fruit, and vegetable as well as the staple cereal crops of maize wheat and rice, and crops like potato and soy bean. Milk is listed under beverages.

Bread and cheese stand out as the only two prepared food items within this list. These two are also very Euro-centric, should we add "noodle" or "tofu"? If we are going by significance, "beer" should be listed under "alcoholic beverage," as it is the third most popular beverage after water and tea, and possibly older then "bread" and "cheese."

Bread and cheese are significant, but they are out of place in the list and open the door to the questions of why we include those but not others. Removing them would open space for other pages.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. Support GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 11:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support removing cheese If we have to make some cuts (and we do), I think listing milk is sufficient to cover dairy products. Cobblet (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. A lot of cuisines (incl. non-European ones) use bread as the major staple (e.g. Lebanese cuisine), and cheese is also widely used by them (incl. Nepalese and Bhutanese cuisine, though no doubt rarely used in East Asian and Southeastern Asian cuisines), thus both cheese and bread are no Euro-centric.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Bread is also known as cultural symbol (sacramental bread, Bread and Roses). Oppose removals unless it means space for really vital topics such as states. --Thi (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose bread, it is not Euro-centric, we have articles on Indian bread, List of Pakistani breads, List of American breads, read Category:Breads by country - Australian, Brazilian, Chinese, Egyptian, Indonesian, Jamaican, Japanese, Mexican, New Zealand etc. Neutral on cheese. starship.paint (RUN) 09:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose bread, weak oppose cheese. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

  1. Comment @User:Thi and @User:RekishiEJ, Wine is also a cultural symbol, and there is a while List of foods with religious symbolism. The importance of bread and chees are not universal, and while more cultures then Europe enjoy these staples, they are not as important to everyone everywhere. In terms of symbolic foods and making space for "really vital topics," egg is a level 4 vital article, not level 3, much less Eggs as food. Eggs are both important in biology, reproduction, and obviously as a food item for humans. With topics like egg, Yogurt, butter, beer, and wine not making it to level 3, I struggle to see the justification for bread and cheese, and the list really seems inconsistent.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can someone propose a swap between Alcoholic beverage  3 and Beer  4 and Wine  4? Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Frida Kahlo  3 for Vincent van Gogh  4[edit]

At V3 in Artists we have 6 articles: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Hokusai, Pablo Picasso and Frida Kahlo. I don't think Kahlo is at the same level as the other 5. A quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Popular pages suggests van Gogh is more popular, and arguably, more famous, impactful and vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom; while representation is important, it should not be too extreme. Kahlo does not rank even close to the other V3 artists, while Van Gogh does. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom; Van Gogh is iconic. Jusdafax (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per nom; Van Gogh is more impactful --EleniXDD※Talk 09:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per above. In terms of the 114 most vital humans, Kahlo does not spring to mind, and van Gogh is more likely to be on that list. starship.paint (RUN) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support swap. Per nom. Later eventually Khalo could be readded but as swap with another biography. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose both per previous discussions. There's the representation problem. J947 ‡ edits 10:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kahlo is an highly influential activist and painter to the Mexican culture, arguably the most famous women painter. Van Gogh is as vital as its expressionist counter-part, that is, Edvard Munch  4. The Blue Rider 01:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. May support a swap of Van Gogh with Rembrandt  3. Kahlo is far more well known than Rembrandt who is fairly obscure and page views over the last decade backs this up. Kahlo gets almost quadruple the number of readers as Rembrandt consistently. Gizza (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per previous discussions. Cobblet (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove History of architecture  3, History of music  3 and History of film  3[edit]

Okay, no doubt they are vital, but are they really as vital as History of art  3, which is currently also considered vital at level 3? Besides, there are currently 1002 articles in the list, yet still incomplete as it lacks some articles so vital that should definitely be added (e.g. Egg  3, Analytical chemistry  4 and Lead  4).

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Subtopics, covered by history of art as well. I read all arguments here, and I favor the nom's position. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support film as it is a relatively recent industry, and I don't see Film  3 going to V2. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support removing history of film, which is too recent to have a history article at this level. Gizza (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose history of music and history of film. Architecture is a subset of art, the others, less so. pbp 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose all. Logic is the same as pbp's but on top of that, I think architecture is a distinct enough field from art to warrant its own history article. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose All three are vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Swap Rembrandt  3 for Vincent van Gogh  4[edit]

Vincent van Gogh is more iconic than Rembrandt. Comparing all pageviews data (back to 2015), van Gogh has more pageviews than all Level 3 artists except Leonardo da Vinci. van Gogh also has more than twice the edits of any of the Level 3 artists, and the second highest number of page watchers behind da Vinci. Meanwhile, Rembrandt has less than 25% of van Gogh's pageviews, and is the least viewed Western artist of Level 3. starship.paint (RUN) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rembrandt's pageviews are much lower than those of Kahlo or Van Gogh. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Van Gogh is V3, but so is Rembrant. The issue is that Kahlo should be swapped out to V3 (per nom above). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per my comments above. Gizza (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per previous discussions, van Gogh is unimportant in the grander narrative of art history and is largely a figure of popular culture. J947 ‡ edits 02:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Kahlo is mainly known as a pop figure as well; Mexico really did a good job popularizing her. The Blue Rider 14:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or to paraphrase J947, van Gogh is culturally significant, more than a century after his death. starship.paint (RUN) 15:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose We do not have room to list three modern artists, and Rembrandt is the only representative of European art between the Renaissance and modern periods. Cobblet (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

@Piotrus, Aszx5000, Jusdafax, J947, The Blue Rider, and DaGizza: who voted above in Kahlo vs van Gogh. starship.paint (RUN) 02:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Conic section  3[edit]

We are over quota, and this is not top rated by the Mathematics Wikiproject. Less than 700 views per day. Seems more suited for V4. starship.paint (RUN) 07:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support compared to the other level 3 geometry articles, the scope of this one is rather narrow. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can see this at V5 but not anywhere higher. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Clarification that early modern period ends in 1815[edit]

Discission at VA5 pbp 22:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting comments on 2 vital articles[edit]

Hello. I'm soliciting comments on Talk:Mars and the Talk:Solar System to brainstorm about future improvements to the article. Feel free to chip in your ideas. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move History of philosophy  4 to level 3[edit]

At the level 4 discussion of History of philosophy, it was suggested to have it as a level 3 vital article. For comparision: Philosophy  1 is level 1, like Science  1 and Mathematics  1. The corresponding history articles of those two fields of inquiry are History of science  2 and History of mathematics  3.

One possible swap could be with History of film  3, since Film  3 itself is just level 3 article, but I confess that my knowledge of vital article swap-practices is rather limited. There is currently a proposal to reduce the level of History of film. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 21:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Looks like it'd be in good company.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

In the hope of getting more feedback, I'll ping the editors involved in the VA 4 discussion of this article. @Hanif Al Husaini, LaukkuTheGreit, Kammerer55, Aszx5000, Interstellarity, J947, Piotrus, Nihil novi, and Dawid2009: if you have the time, your input would be appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add East Asia  4[edit]

We list its history at V3 (History of East Asia  3), but not the region itself. It contains over a fifth of the world population and over a quarter of the world GDP. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reasonable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose The list contains alla East Asian countries except Mongolia and North Korea. Those articles or History of China would be better choices. --Thi (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support the removal of  Taiwan if it weren’t the twenty-first largest economy.
    Speaking of nominal GDP, I don’t know if we should start a discussion on this, but with  Switzerland set to hit $1 trillion by next year, we should decide if it should be V3. It has a comparable population to  Israel and  United Arab Emirates, which are countries partially listed for their economies. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe nominal GDP is worse than PPP when it comes to vital country lists. In that case,  Romania would be more vital. Aside from that,  Iraq is probably the next country we should be promoting to V3. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose All major East Asian countries are already included. Switzerland has minimal geopolitical significance compared to Israel or the UAE. Cobblet (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose overlaps too much with many countries that are listed per above. Gizza (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Remove History of Oceania  3[edit]

Don’t see how a continent/region of 46 million needs its history at a higher level than that of much more important countries, regions, and non-geographical topics. Even two V4 countries ( Uganda and  Sudan) have higher populations. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trivial at that level. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose The histories of all of Earth's inhabited landmasses should be included at this level. Oceania is one of the first places on Earth where agriculture was developed, the earliest example of humans' ability to drastically alter natural environments, the location of the most technically remarkable human migration ever, the most linguistically diverse place on Earth, and ground zero for climate change – no well-educated person should be ignorant of Oceanian history. Cobblet (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Cobblet, Oceania's history is important to humans--EleniXDD※Talk 09:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above. Cannot see how the history of a region inhabited by humans for a very long time can be ignored at this level. Gizza (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
  1. On an unrelated note, between the two countries mentioned above, I’d probably support Sudan at V3, and I’d be neutral on Uganda, a country with little influence internationally. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nominated Oceania for removal at level 2. Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2#Remove_Oceania. Interstellarity (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Anarchism  3[edit]

Its influence on mainstream politics is limited. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It might be limited now but it certaintly wasn't in the 19th and 20th century. The Blue Rider 16:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Coalition to cite all statements in Vital articles with reliable source[edit]

It's time to make the Vital list more useful. How about making a coordinated effort to eradicate all {{cn}} in the Vital articles? We can start with Level 1 articles and gradually move downwards to level 2, 3, 4, and finally level 5 articles if we have the time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interest! The Blue Rider 16:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: Remove Hunting  3, add Service (economics)  4[edit]

Under Economy  3, we currently list four industries within the Primary sector of the economy: Agriculture  2, Fishing  3, Hunting  3, and Mining  3; and two industries within the Secondary sector of the economy: Manufacturing  2 and Construction  3. We do not list any industry within the Tertiary sector of the economy at Level 3 or above.

Such a distribution between the three sectors is imbalanced, and within the primary sector, hunting is arguably the least important: most animals produced for human consumption (either for meat or animal products) are farmed (i.e., agriculture), not hunted. A case can be made for removing fishing instead, given that it is a subtopic of agriculture and seafood comprises a minority of meat consumed in most countries around the world, however it is probably a more widespread practice than hunting, so my preference is for the removal of hunting. Given that the tertiary sector is mostly about the provision of services, adding Service (economics)  4 makes sense.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support swap with Bow and arrow  3. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bow and arrow should be removed first. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, Hunting was the only way all of humanity fed itself for over 90% of its existence, before agriculture was common. Food and Agriculture are at level 2, at level 3 we start listing several animals and food and drink types and crops, I would prefer to keep hunting, seems more vital in the long run than soybean, cheese, tea, chicken, egg. I also agree hunting may be more vital than bow and arrow.  Carlwev  12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=1222834982"